All lists like this are purely subjective. Even then, itís difficult to choose and almost discriminate against fine musicians. But Iím not just choosing the individuals, Iím trying to find a balance for the band. So some of the choices are made on that basis, not because the individual is better than the other candidates, but because I believe him to be better for this band.

My Choice: Peter Gabriel. Although relatively-poor as a singer next to the others, his sense of drama and colour and mood would, in my opinion, give a sharper focus, direction, and would be an excellent spokesman for the music the band tried to portray.

2)Brian May (Queen) Positives: Virtuoso technique; brilliant use of tone and sound; lovely construction of segments. Negatives: Inclined towards set play rather than improvisation; rather formulaic in approach.

3)Lindsey Buckingham (Fleetwood Mac)Positives: Capable of almost any style and technique; writer; vocalist. Negatives: Inclined to want to do things his way without band input. An eccentricity that seeks the superficial at times; an obstinacy that can bring negative input to the band.

4)Steve Howe (Yes) Positives: Excellent technique; complete command of the instrument; virtuoso passages of play. Negatives: A detachment from the music at times; a tendency to play for complexity rather than feeling; an alarming unawareness at times.

My Choice: Lindsey Buckingham. His all-round ability and technical excellence swung my vote ahead of the others, who are all marvellous in their sphere. But Lindsey would, to me, provide a springboard for almost anything the band cared to do.

3)John McVie (Fleetwood Mac)Positives: The most melodic and inventive of players; thoughtful, tuneful. Negatives: Not the greatest technician by any means.

4)Chris Squires (Yes) Positives: A solid force and grounding; plays like a lead guitar. Negatives: Plays like a lead guitar; not always sympathetic to the needs of the band; the treble sound he uses, though individual, can sometimes fail to give enough bottom to the band.

My Choice: John McVie. Though perhaps the weakest of the four technically, John has a range of melodic structures that are compositions in themselves, and this would bring something different to the table, especially suited to this band.

Drummer

1)Carl Palmer (ELP) Positives: Powerful; the full range of technique; showman. Negatives: Some mid-range playing missing; something of an exhibition drum clinic drummer; would he notice if the rest of the band left the stage?

4)Bill Bruford (Yes) Positives: Has the full range of technique and capability; unusually subtle for a powerful drummer. Negatives: Guilty of detachment from the music; at times a pure drum clinic drummer, part of the drummerís union rather than the musicianís.

My Choice: Roger Taylor. Rogerís all round capability and reliability decided this vote. It was a close call for me between Roger and Michael Giles. Michael only lost out because he was almost too suited to the melodic and dramatic feel given by Peter and John. I felt that adding Michael would have made the band too one-dimensional, whereas Roger can give those melodies and colour some certainty.

Keyboardist

1)Rick Wright (Pink Floyd) Positives: A remarkable pedigree and range of sounds; a good band player. Negatives: Not a virtuoso or even first division in technique.

2)Keith Emerson (The Nice; ELP) Positives: First-class technique; greatest showman; interested and very capable in new sounds. Negatives: Inclined to bombast and jamming; better at set pieces than improvisation.

3)Billy Ritchie (Clouds) Positives: The most dynamic; carries a band on his own; Writer; vocalist. Negatives: somewhat power mad ,inclined to try and be the band; not a great soloist; not at all adapted to synths or adept at using them.

4)Rick Wakeman (Yes) Positives: The best technique of any famous modern player; the best range of sounds and alternative keyboards. Negatives: Inclined to use the band as a doodling pad; uses one hand rather too often.

My Choice: Rick Wakeman. No real agonies here at all. It has to be Rick because of his authority over many keyboards and sounds, allied to his virtuoso technique. We donít need a showman like Emerson (who would be second choice, also an excellent technician) or a one-man-band like Ritchie (with a sound and power that would knock walls down Ė weíre planning to be more subtle and interesting than that).We donít need Rick (Wright) to supply the colour on his own either. Hopefully the band as a whole will do that.

All lists like this are purely subjective. Even then, itís difficult to choose and almost discriminate against fine musicians. But Iím not just choosing the individuals, Iím trying to find a balance for the band. So some of the choices are made on that basis, not because the individual is better than the other candidates, but because I believe him to be better for this band.

My Choice: Peter Gabriel. Although relatively-poor as a singer next to the others, his sense of drama and colour and mood would, in my opinion, give a sharper focus, direction, and would be an excellent spokesman for the music the band tried to portray.

2)Brian May (Queen) Positives: Virtuoso technique; brilliant use of tone and sound; lovely construction of segments. Negatives: Inclined towards set play rather than improvisation; rather formulaic in approach.

3)Lindsey Buckingham (Fleetwood Mac)Positives: Capable of almost any style and technique; writer; vocalist. Negatives: Inclined to want to do things his way without band input. An eccentricity that seeks the superficial at times; an obstinacy that can bring negative input to the band.

4)Steve Howe (Yes) Positives: Excellent technique; complete command of the instrument; virtuoso passages of play. Negatives: A detachment from the music at times; a tendency to play for complexity rather than feeling; an alarming unawareness at times.

My Choice: Lindsey Buckingham. His all-round ability and technical excellence swung my vote ahead of the others, who are all marvellous in their sphere. But Lindsey would, to me, provide a springboard for almost anything the band cared to do.

3)John McVie (Fleetwood Mac)Positives: The most melodic and inventive of players; thoughtful, tuneful. Negatives: Not the greatest technician by any means.

4)Chris Squires (Yes) Positives: A solid force and grounding; plays like a lead guitar. Negatives: Plays like a lead guitar; not always sympathetic to the needs of the band; the treble sound he uses, though individual, can sometimes fail to give enough bottom to the band.

My Choice: John McVie. Though perhaps the weakest of the four technically, John has a range of melodic structures that are compositions in themselves, and this would bring something different to the table, especially suited to this band.

Drummer

1)Carl Palmer (ELP) Positives: Powerful; the full range of technique; showman. Negatives: Some mid-range playing missing; something of an exhibition drum clinic drummer; would he notice if the rest of the band left the stage?

4)Bill Bruford (Yes) Positives: Has the full range of technique and capability; unusually subtle for a powerful drummer. Negatives: Guilty of detachment from the music; at times a pure drum clinic drummer, part of the drummerís union rather than the musicianís.

My Choice: Roger Taylor. Rogerís all round capability and reliability decided this vote. It was a close call for me between Roger and Michael Giles. Michael only lost out because he was almost too suited to the melodic and dramatic feel given by Peter and John. I felt that adding Michael would have made the band too one-dimensional, whereas Roger can give those melodies and colour some certainty.

Keyboardist

1)Rick Wright (Pink Floyd) Positives: A remarkable pedigree and range of sounds; a good band player. Negatives: Not a virtuoso or even first division in technique.

2)Keith Emerson (The Nice; ELP) Positives: First-class technique; greatest showman; interested and very capable in new sounds. Negatives: Inclined to bombast and jamming; better at set pieces than improvisation.

3)Billy Ritchie (Clouds) Positives: The most dynamic; carries a band on his own; Writer; vocalist. Negatives: somewhat power mad ,inclined to try and be the band; not a great soloist; not at all adapted to synths or adept at using them.

4)Rick Wakeman (Yes) Positives: The best technique of any famous modern player; the best range of sounds and alternative keyboards. Negatives: Inclined to use the band as a doodling pad; uses one hand rather too often.

My Choice: Rick Wakeman. No real agonies here at all. It has to be Rick because of his authority over many keyboards and sounds, allied to his virtuoso technique. We donít need a showman like Emerson (who would be second choice, also an excellent technician) or a one-man-band like Ritchie (with a sound and power that would knock walls down Ė weíre planning to be more subtle and interesting than that).We donít need Rick (Wright) to supply the colour on his own either. Hopefully the band as a whole will do that.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum